I also don't think the OC movement has bad intentions, but the road to hell is paved with the best of 'em, as the negative consequences of heavy OC protesting in California and Starbucks frequently cited in this thread exhibit.

I would like your interpretation of the fact that, now, with Oklahoma on board, we are up to 45 states that allow Open Carry and within the next 2 or 3 years as their gun groups become stronger, we will have OC there. Your bias also evident. I don't condone wild and crazy militarized dress being used in protests, but obviously the pro-gun movement in California has been on the slippery road to eventual non-existence while many are elated that some in law enforcement "allow" you to concealed carry. California's recent oppression of gun rights encouraged an equal response by pro-gunners and they got it.

My observations below are only my own; I do not make them on behalf of anyone else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Pfleuger

You might not want them in your verbal opening statement in a court room but there's positively no reason they wouldn't be included in a written "comprehensive response to critics" on a forum with software that is designed with an easy method to link to your evidence without cluttering the actual text.

That point also does not address the continued refusal to provide that evidence in subsequent posts.

That goes to whether this fellow titled his polemic foolishly. Asserting that one will make a comprehensive response in an on-line post suggests a problem other that insufficient statistical support.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Pfleuger

I see none of this "strident partisanship" in this thread.

I disagree. Note Al's reference to the OP's response as well as your own response to the idea of OC as an educational tool.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Pfleuger

I do have very strong objections to the use of OC as a tool of political activism and show of force under current and reasonably foreseeable conditions in the USA.

I understand that you and several others have objections that you feel very strongly. It shows in the writing in this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Pfleuger

However, none of that is the point of any of my objections in this thread. My objections are based on claims like "EVERY study shows..." because the claim is neither proven nor provable, one can not disprove the existence of a negative study.

In other words, the claim itself is logical fallacy. The underlying point that "every study" is supposed to prove, "that criminals will avoid armed persons" is also a logical fallacy with no additional support. It is a "Hasty Generalization" or Composition Fallacy. Because some criminals will avoid armed people it does not follow that "criminals" (all inclusive) will avoid armed people.

I agree. As I noted in post 67 above, that kind of over-reach weakens an argument that could be quite persuasive in more modest form.

Quote:

I also have a problem with someone who is in a position to be and acts as (official or no) a spokesperson for our cause using arguments, methods and fallacies that will have them torn apart by the opposition and make us all look foolish by association.

It would be best if advocates were numerous and excellent. Does the way this thread unfolded assist in the mentoring and assistance of that kind of public advocacy?

I dislike a facet of a part of the 2d Am. advocacy culture I sometime see illustrated here and potentially reflected in your language above. I also saw it earlier in this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Pfleuger

TFL exists to advance responsible firearms ownership. "Responsible" includes the very real responsibility to police our own and protect and enhance the public perception of gun owners.

This concept of "polic[ing] our own" is problematic in two related respects. First, it isn't your or my place to police civil rights advocacy. Second, advocating for protection of a right doesn't make a fellow yours or mine.

If you think that observation unfairly describes your position, I have little investment in it and welcome correction. I do note that self-appointed custodians of one or another right can appear clubby and uninviting.

This first incident was addressed at least twice in this thread. The OCer was OCing "regularly" in an area in NE Milwaukee where police had been warning citizens about the increase of crime in that community. The OCer lacked "Wisdom and Prudence". Lions don't invade a hyena's den and OCers should not challenge the dominion of the BGs because it is a challenge to their authority.

It is the areas outside of the BG's dominion, you should open carry because just like the hyenas, they leave their den to find prey as do the BGs. That is where OC is needed. And as for the student OCing; he obviously knew enough to retain his gun. There are thousands of car jackings that occur every year. Do you leave your car at home to avoid them. There has been one gun stolen from a person who was unwisely open carrying in a BG's area and as a result of that, the opposition uses that one red herring incident to argue that all OCing is bad. Think about it - thousands of carjackings annually but you still drive. Two unwise OCer guns stolen in recorded history - OC bad!

I disagree. Note Al's reference to the OP's response as well as your own response to the idea of OC as an educational tool.

I don't see disagreement as "strident partisanship". My objections are to claims with no evidence and logical fallacies. I could argue as to why I don't think OC is this or that thing but I have not. I argue that the claims are unproven and generally unprovable.

I don't think that simple statements that I oppose certain generic actions qualify as partisanship. Partisanship would be the refusal to work with someone of a different viewpoint simply because of that viewpoint. Quite to the contrary, I'd like to help IdahoCarry make the most cogent argument possible, whether or not I agree, because he is part of the 2A community.

Quote:

Does the way this thread unfolded assist in the mentoring and assistance of that kind of public advocacy?

I believe that it unfolded in a way that would be expected when someone does not produce evidence of factual claims while they continue to argue that the claims are factual. I would expect the objections to be many and vociferous.

If someone making a claim does not wish to be greeted with increasingly impatient responses, the appropriate redress would be to supply the requested documentation.

Quote:

This concept of "polic[ing] our own" is problematic in two related respects. First, it isn't your or my place to police civil rights advocacy. Second, advocating for protection of a right doesn't make a fellow yours or mine.

If you think that observation unfairly describes your position, I have little investment in it and welcome correction. I do note that self-appointed custodians of one or another right can appear clubby and uninviting.

I make no effort to police the actions of others in the 2A community except as they occur directly on The Firing Line and effect it's stated mission.

Even here, it is very much like peeing in the wind. I can only hope that someone will come around to a more reasoned approach for the "real world".

Much like my position in OC, my objection the political actions of others in our community is based on what I consider a wise approach, not one of a desire to encroach on their freedoms or prevent them from having their say.

I very often wish that a great many folks would "say it differently", be it word or action, but I understand that such is the price of freedom.

__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.

Actually I posted another. However as I stated I am PRO open carry I do it myself. What I am against is the specious argument that being targeted for open carrying never happens.

In my opinion if I can find three incidents where it has happened and been reported there should be many more that weren't newsworthy. Not to mention those where the person carrying stopped the individual and nothing came of it after that.

Again I'm on the side of OC. Just not on the side of rhetoric and emotional argument.

__________________
Half the country hates my business, the other half my hobby.

I appreciate your posting the 3rd event, and that too proves the point of failure to practice Wisdom and Prudence. This guy was Open Carrying in a bad area at 4:30 in the morning. Who in their right mind would be walking in the jungle at 4:30am on a Sunday morning? By the way, I did acknowledge that it did happen in my original post.

Tony, I don't think that accurately portrays the helpful (to you) point made, which is that a categorical assertion is going to be easily refuted by anyone with an internet connection.

I have an idea which you are free to disregard. Rather than focusing on ways to refute the limiting statements with which you are faced, would it work better to ask for more persuasive revisions of the meritorious parts of your claims?

My guess would be that there would be many here willing to help as editors who could improve your message.

Let me also urge you not to view challenge and argument as a hindrance to be resented, but an opportunity to be enjoyed.

This concept of "polic[ing] our own" is problematic in two related respects. First, it isn't your or my place to police civil rights advocacy.

But it is. If enough folks go off the reservation, it creates problems for all of us. As I posted earlier,

Quote:

Sure, some guys will say, "well, it was the guys who acted like jerks in one situation, but that's not us."

Wrong. It is us. It's all of us. Most of the population isn't all that involved in the gun issue. When they think of the gun people, they think of one monolithic group. They don't see the distinctions we make (sometimes to our detriment) between skeet shooters, hunters, competition shooters, or political advocates. To them, those are all the gun people.

This is why we have to police our own. The guy who shot up the stop sign on Route 4? The gun people. Those guys who shot the sacred white elk? The gun people. David Kokesh? The gun people.

If a guy goes on one of the major media outlets and presents our point poorly, or if he gets roasted by an opponent who's more savvy, it hurts all of us.

Quote:

Lions don't invade a hyena's den and OCers should not challenge the dominion of the BGs because it is a challenge to their authority.

This contradicts your earlier assertion that OC acts as a deterrent to crime.

I have found some rabid anti-OCers in the national gun forums and am busy posting the following in those forums.

Rabid, contemptuous and abusive persons who portray themselves as CCers and jump at every opportunity to malign and denigrate OCers just for the fact that they OC, leads me to believe that they are wolves in sheepdog clothing.

Who's driving the wedge here? It's not us. Idaho has voiced his intent to perform activism, therefore representing us. We have a very real interest in ensuring that he doesn't do it wrong.

__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe

Originally Posted by IdahoCarry
Two unwise OCer guns stolen in recorded history - OC bad!

You acknowledged it yes. But you are unwilling to accept that it is an issue that should be addressed by more than snarky remarks and straw man arguments(below).

Quote:

There are thousands of car jackings that occur every year. Do you leave your car at home to avoid them. There has been one gun stolen from a person who was unwisely open carrying in a BG's area and as a result of that, the opposition uses that one red herring incident to argue that all OCing is bad. Think about it - thousands of carjackings annually but you still drive.

Again, I'm on your side. For now...

__________________
Half the country hates my business, the other half my hobby.

Tony, I don't think that accurately portrays the helpful (to you) point made, which is that a categorical assertion is going to be easily refuted by anyone with an internet connection.

I have an idea which you are free to disregard. Rather than focusing on ways to refute the limiting statements with which you are faced, would it work better to ask for more persuasive revisions of the meritorious parts of your claims?

My guess would be that there would be many here willing to help as editors who could improve your message.

Let me also urge you not to view challenge and argument as a hindrance to be resented, but an opportunity to be enjoyed.

There is a method to my madness. First of all, most anti-Ocers use these few incidents to forward their argument against OC. Look at the number of times they have posted them on this thread. I acknowledged one in my original post and I should have mentioned the other where the teen came up from behind and stole an unsecured gun from a fellow not maintaining situational awareness who then chased the kid and was killed. I had it in my original draft but because addressing the many stupid mistakes made by the OCer, it slowed down the flow of the article and my wife agreed.

One of the purposes in posting this was to get the responses that I did. I needed the weak points identified and challenged. Through this torrent of responses I have gleaned a lot of good information and will, after my events end tonight, spend the weekend adjusting my original post to make it stronger and address more fully the request for more data to support my claims.

I put this out to my state a few weeks ago and apparently it was totally accepted because I received no challenge. That is why I ventured into the national forums and this has worked well. There are some here that are truly open to OC but too many who are totally opposed to it being used as a political statement. To them I can only say, thank God they weren't in Boston in the 1760s.

To them I can only say, thank God they weren't in Boston in the 1760s.

This isn't Boston in the 1760s.

Notice the wording of my post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Pfleuger

...as a tool of political activism and show of force under current and reasonably foreseeable conditions in the USA.

Quote:

...address more fully the request for more data to support my claims.

Please note that links to studies that were not directly intended to address OC do not qualify as data or evidence. If there is some salient point buried within a study intended to address another topic, the proper citation would be something along the lines of "John Smith, in his study titled Panda Bears and Firearms points out in paragraph 3 of page 6 that "Panda Bears....".

Simply naming an unrelated or slightly correlated study is not sufficient.

__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.

I do not agree with your conclusion that he represents me any more than you represent me. You and I are not obligated to incorporate the error of those who see all "gun people" as part of a single group. If you adopt that error, you do so voluntarily. If you appoint yourself the custodian of advocacy because someone else's actions might affect you, then you overstep in a manner different but not less odious than IdahoCarry does.

Where you do that, you are a participant in the wedge driving, a dance that generally takes two.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

If a guy goes on one of the major media outlets and presents our point poorly, or if he gets roasted by an opponent who's more savvy, it hurts all of us.

Potentially, yes. This doesn't make him one of your "own".

Employing the language of a constituency or interest group apart from the general population does not mesh well with civil rights advocacy.

If there is some salient point buried within a study intended to address another topic, the proper citation would be something along the lines of "John Smith, in his study titled Panda Bears and Firearms points out in paragraph 3 of page 6 that "Panda Bears....".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Pfleuger
...as a tool of political activism and show of force under current and reasonably foreseeable conditions in the USA.

Please explain your meaning of "political activism" and "show of force" and "reasonably foreseeable conditions".
We are facing powerful forces who would, if they could, take all of our guns. Obama restated last night after the shooting of the school teacher that he is not giving up on his gun control measures.

The differences between 1760s English colonialism and 21st Century America with freely elected politicians is clear beyond any common sense. These is no requirement for further definition.

Equally clear is the difference between political activism and the carrying of a firearm (by any method) as a means of self-defense.

__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.

this discourse will ultimately hone my arguments and probably add a few words of "in my opinion" in a few places.

First off, let me compliment you on your ability to maintain calm and focus while we are blowing big holes in your arguments. This is an important, fundamental building block, and you are showing you have it. Lots of folks don't.

In the interest of helping you craft better arguments, let me point out something...

Comparing general things to/against a specific incident is a tricky thing. Usually it results in giving the listener a different impression than what is intended.

The fact that one specific incident of an OC having their gun taken simply shows that it can, and has happened. We all know this is possible. Police are the common everyday OC, everywhere. And they get their guns taken sometimes!

DO not confuse the fact that not having numerous reported incidents available for easy reference means something is impossible or extremely unlikely. Or the opposite.

__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

I do not agree with your conclusion that he represents me any more than you represent me. You and I are not obligated to incorporate the error of those who see all "gun people" as part of a single group.

We absolutely are. How the rest of the population sees us matters, and they don't see the gun culture as a spectrum. They see us as a monolithic group.

The post-Sandy Hook legislation wasn't quashed by a landslide. It was by a very slim margin. We're still behind the ball, and that one guy who looks foolish (whether by intention or not) on the evening news hurts all of us.

__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe

I do not agree with your conclusion that he represents me any more than you represent me. You and I are not obligated to incorporate the error of those who see all "gun people" as part of a single group.

We absolutely are. How the rest of the population sees us matters, and they don't see the gun culture as a spectrum. They see us as a monolithic group.

Rather than incorporate an error into the analysis and treatment of individuals, it would further accuracy to correct the error.

1. It is admitted that OC is dangerous in a risky place, then I repeat I doubt its utility. It is claimed that you shouldn't go to risky places but if you must - why take a step that increases your risk? Also who is to say that the gun makes you seem like prey for high end predators won't happen in nice places?

2. Thus, from incidents and the above analyses we know that OC cannot be claimed as the universal, never failing deterrents. The statistical methodology exists to see if there is an OC deterrent effect. No such studies have been done. Past studies were not specific to OC laws recently put into effect.

Those who argue that they will grapple, thus admit that the deterrent value has failed. They fail to realize that you do not have to grapple to get the gun away. They see folks grapple on TV with one opponent who starts the fight by clearing announcing their intent. Yeah, that's the way it would happen.

3. It is claimed that OC will desensitize folks to gun presence as there is no uproar in some locales that are gun friendly. However, we do know from the aggressive priming literature, that firearms presence can engender negative thoughts. I can quote it in depth - trust me (PhD in this area). So there is no evidence yet that OC will change public opinion positively if negative gun attitudes exist. The evidence suggests otherwise.

4. The claim that not supporting unfounded OC claims somehow makes you not a supporter of OC or willing to stand up for the RKBA is scurrilous.

I think OC is tactically stupid. I don't think it has particular political utility.

Thus, I support us drinking tea and God Save the Queen. Or perhaps, I stand up to my boss and argue for campus concealed carry - which is much more useful to my real world than carrying a gun to Starbucks. Perhaps, I testify to the TX House and get interviewed on the tube, played on several TX stations and then quoted in the major Texas newspapers. That delights my antigun work place.

But how? On the ground, Suzie Soccer Mom just sees a guy in a Ted Nugent t-shirt walking around the mall with a rifle glaring at people. Her mind is made up in that instant.

Will I ever meet her? Will I have a chance at changing her poor first impression if I do? Probably not.

Assuming an impenetrable ignorance in those you would seek to convince, and incorporating the ignorance you assume into your own position does not improve the accuracy of your position.

Some mothers of small children have a husband who shoots recreationally. Many have a gun in the home. Your sense that this is her first impression on the issue may be misguided.

I don't see the problem in explaining that people we might not like have rights, just like people we do like. The fellow with a rifle at the mall, or leaving the shop after having his rifle bore-sighted as Al was, might not be her best friend, just as the fellow with the camo covered 4x4, might not be at her next dinner party, and just as people who yell at one another on the TV might not be over to her place at Christmas. Those people are still correctly entitled carry an arm, or drive a silly looking truck, or speak as they please.

Free speech advocates know that someone will speak in unpleasant ways, and they take that into account in arguing their positions. They do not function with a sense that everyone with a blog has a corporate/collective PR responsibility.

If you meet Suzie Soccer Mom, and you can't persuade her about the value of exercising constitutionally protected rights, even when individuals do it ham-handedly, you likely weren't going to win her over anyway.

The internicene blame for the failure to persuade third parties seems a bit of an excuse.

If you meet Suzie Soccer Mom, and you can't persuade her about the value of exercising constitutionally protected rights, even when individuals do it ham-handedly, you likely weren't going to win her over anyway.

True, but Suzie's negative impression of us is preventable. That's the point.

A few years ago, Ted Nugent got on stage during a concert, brandished an AR-15, and shouted "suck on this, Hillary!" It made national news. Pundits had a field day with it. Ted's on the Board of Directors. Therefore, he's the NRA, right? To many viewers, he is.

We can hue and cry all we want that he doesn't always represent us. Doesn't matter. The damage is done.

We're not going to get a chance to talk to most of those people. Their minds are made up.

__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe

This same link has been posted several times on this thread and you obviously now think that there was more than one story. And the OCer would not have been shot and killed if he didn't chase the kid who stole his gun. As for other people being shot. I will do you a favor and pull all of articles of CCers who have had their guns stolen when the perp got the drop on them and used that gun to kill oher. The fact is, in many robberies of persons, the BG frisks the CCer, finds the gun and steals it. Would you care to guess how many times that has happened as opposed to this one incident in 2011.

For a moment nevermind the guy who had his gun stolen, focus on the 2nd guy who was shot with that gun... it never would have happened if the OC'er was CC'er. Period.
The visible availability of the gun itself was the catalyst of the first crime and the singular instrument used in the second.
Don’t assume it’s the first time its happened, or that it'll be the last.

Pull the stats on how many officers have had gun-grab attempts or been attacked for their pistols by those whom they were not perusing/arresting to begin with.
Follow that by producing evidence that you and the OC crowd are somehow better trained to deal with such grabs. How are you more prepared than those who make it their profession?

Yes, I've repeatedly stuffed the Tyler case in your face because it’s the most recent and most definitive example of an OC gone wrong from start to finish.
It’s a solid showing that criminals don’t magically shy away from a guy with a gun on his hip, and that a few are actually drawn to the gun as if it were a fat diamond hanging around the owners neck.
OC is a statistic in the making combined with low public acceptance... at statistic that none of us here care to see inflated to the detriment of overall 2A support.

Quote:

The fact is, in many robberies of persons, the BG frisks the CCer, finds the gun and steals it. Would you care to guess how many times that has happened as opposed to this one incident in 2011.

Yes, please enlighten us with more of your opinions posing as "The fact is".

It just occurred to me.... your three days, a huge first post, and 29 more posts into this forum without making any headway.
You've attracted the scowls of every scholar, lawyer, and effective 2A activist here who conservatively studies and assists in the promotion of 2A in a tangible manner that benefits us all in the real world as well as keeping an even keel here in the forum.

True, but Suzie's negative impression of us is preventable. That's the point.

No one contests the tautology that bad press is bad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Quote:

This concept of "polic[ing] our own" is problematic in two related respects. First, it isn't your or my place to police civil rights advocacy.

But it is. If enough folks go off the reservation, it creates problems for all of us.

You do employ the language of tribalism and an ability to enforce your conclusions on those you see as part of a "community". This does not seem accidental inasmuch as you employ that language repeatedly. I do not see that sort of overreach, an analytical framework in which your embarrassment over this Ted Nugent fellow is a failure of your imagined authority to police others, as the most persuasive way to describe the issues surrounding a civil right.

If your experience is that the people to whom you speak or write find that language persuasive, compelling and productive, I encourage you to continue to use it. However, it strikes me as unlikely that your claim of responsibility for people whose behavior you oppose will persuade anyone who does not already agree with you, and is likely to be taken as overbearing by those who would defend the right described in the Second Amendment, but with whom you may have minor differences.

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.